Below is my column in The Hill on two controversies involving Chief Judge James Boasberg this week in Washington, D.C. Both involve claims that branches undermined or intruded on the authority of another branch. However, these separation-of-powers conflicts produced strikingly different responses from Judge Boasberg. It seemed that the court’s concerns depended greatly on whose ox was being gored in a tripartite contest.
Here is the column:
For months, District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg has been very much in the news. This spring, he issued a 46-page decision finding that the Trump administration may be in contempt of court for violating his order to return flights of deportees being sent to El Salvador.
In that ruling, Boasberg insisted that it was essential for him to know the facts on whether “officials of a coordinate branch” had undermined judicial integrity. After all, nothing short of the separation of powers was at stake. This week, Boasberg announced that he was moving forward without further delay to ferret out who was responsible for the alleged violation.
That message, however, has now been undermined by another Judge James Boasberg, who is in the news this week as part of the controversy over the Justice Department’s acquisition of telephone records of leading Republican members of Congress. Boasberg had imposed a gag order on telephone companies to prevent them from informing Congress that the executive branch was snooping on who had been in contact with them.
These two James Boasbergs seem as different as the two Jeffrey Epsteins referenced this week by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) — one a presumably respectable medical doctor, the other a deceased sex offender. However, to use Crockett’s formulation, it was indeed “that James Boasberg” in both cases.
The growing scandal over the seizure of telephone records of Republican members of Congress by former Special Counsel Jack Smith has continued to grow with new disclosures. This includes revelations that Smith obtained of records for former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Judiciary Chair James Jordan (R-Ohio).
It is difficult to overstate the gravity of this intrusion into the legislative branch. These records can reveal whom members spoke with and when such calls took place. It can reveal communications with journalists, whistleblowers, and others speaking confidentially with representatives. It can also reveal embarrassing information about members from their personal numbers.
The gathering of such information without an obvious good cause can potentially deter members in confronting the Justice Department, which is notorious for leaking information against critics and targets.
Ironically, such leaks are at the heart of investigations led by the very targets of these orders, including Jordan and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). It also included McCarthy, the person second in line for the presidency, who could ultimately assume authority over the Justice Department under the Constitution.
The demand under Operation Arctic Frost was unprecedented in scope, with dozens of subpoenas going to such carriers as Verizon and AT&T. Nineteen such orders for these telephone records were accompanied by judicial nondisclosure orders for subpoenas signed by Boasberg. While commonly issued, these nondisclosures have long been controversial. It did not seem to matter that the Justice Department was targeting the very members exercising oversight over investigations into its own previous abusive use of investigatory powers.
It is still not clear for what crimes these members were being investigated. The order on Jordan in 2022 covered two prior years.
Not surprisingly, some Democratic apologists such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) immediately dismissed the gravity of such demands by the Justice Department. However, other Democrats have expressed alarm over the intrusion into such communications.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) stated, “On the surface of it, it would strike me as a significant invasion of the right of Senators to conduct their jobs, so this is something that needs urgent follow-up.”
Indeed, the move by Judge Boasberg shattered the very rules of engagement between the coequal and “coordinate branches” that the same Boasberg has repeatedly raised in his investigation of the Trump administration.
Boasberg signed these orders despite a federal law designed to prevent precisely this type of secret investigation of Congress. Federal law requires that “no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process.”
Just in case there was any doubt, the law further states that “any provider for a Senate office … shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure.”
However, Boasberg signed orders that prevented the phone providers from informing members of Congress — members who were actively investigating abuses by the Justice Department — that they were now being subjected to precisely such investigations.
There is little question how Congress would have responded. You are seeing it unfold this week. However, they were never told even as they objected to open-ended and abusive investigations of thousands of citizens after the January 6 Capitol riot.
Boasberg was fully aware of those abuses, stretching back to the debunked Russiagate investigation, in which false information had been given to courts to carry out surveillance of Trump associates.
Indeed, it was Boasberg again who ordered the resulting investigation into the false information given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as part of the Russiagate investigation. He was criticized for appointing an attorney to assist him, David Kris, whom the Washington Post described as “highly controversial” given his past denials of any wrongdoing by the Justice Department.
The wrongdoing was very real. An attorney at the FBI ultimately pleaded guilty to lying to the court in an effort to justify surveillance. Others were fired after Inspector General investigations exposed their abuse of investigatory powers.
Despite that history, Boasberg gagged phone carriers from informing Congress of the seizure of the telephone records of key Republican members overseeing investigations of the Justice Department.
I do not support the calls for Boasberg to be impeached, but his role in this scandal cannot be ignored. He not only enabled this abusive effort but also expressly told these companies not to reveal the demands to anyone.
None of this means that there are no legitimate questions raised about the failure to comply with his orders on the El Salvador flight. But Boasberg’s separation-of-powers concerns seem strangely selective, depending on whose powers are being usurped.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” He has also represented the House of Representatives in court.
Ah, what a few days away from the crazy of this blog makes.
Professor Turley’s caterwauling and pearl-clutching about Judge Boasberg’s actions are nothing but manufactured hysterics to keep his MAGA readers angry and shocked about things he loves to exaggerate for the benefit of his MAGA readers who need to rage. How ironic.
The professor knows full well that the DOJ CAN subpoena phone records of congressmen in pursuit of an investigation. It’s perfectly legal. What the professor is not disclosing is the fact that the records only contain phone numbers, the numbers called, and the dates of the calls. These records did NOT include conversations. That is the distinction he conveniently omits for the purpose of ensuring MAGA gets enraged.
Furthermore, Professor Turley should be aware that the gag order preventing phone companies from disclosing to investigation targets that their phone records are being subpoenaed or investigated is perfectly legal.
It’s ironic how Professor Turley seems “alarmed” by perfeclty legal actions while ignoring another intrusion into congressmembers privacy by Pulte. You know, the guy sifting through mortgage applications of Trump’s political enemies and using the information to initiate investigations. Funny how he seems to conveniently ignore it while shrieking about Boarberg’s alleged “abuses”. It’s more likely Turley is throwing out distracting fodder to avoid attention to Trump’s growing unpopularity and plummeting poll numbers and policy failures.
Ah, what a few days away from the crazy of this blog makes….. you can always stay away. No one missed you.
Yeah, take a hike off a cliff.
And still the nice GOP guys do nothing….as the Democrats fight their Civil War…their 2nd
Some fascists don’t wear armbands, they wear black robes.
Is the judge a Nazi?
Nazi? Really, that’s your best shot? Folks, wonder why this country is in dire straights. Just look at the comments here. Stupider than stupid.
Isn’t “Nazi” what democrats call anyone that they believe may have ignored established law, acted unlawfully, and gave an illegal order? Others on this blog have clearly documented that the judge’s order is in direct violation of established statute. Do not the telephone service providers have an obligation to ignore illegal judicial orders as Democrat legislators recently counseled U.S. service members to ignore “illegal” orders from a President that they have repeatedly identified as a “Nazi” and alluded to be “Hitler”?
You’re only one here ranting about Nazis.
You asked and answered your own questions.
From the internet, this is about as close as it gets for the applicable law prohibiting secret investigations of congress:
A recent federal provision, enacted as part of the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, is designed to prevent the secret investigation of Congress by requiring notification when a Senator’s office data is sought.
Key Provisions
Mandatory Notification: The law requires internet service providers and the Senate Sergeant at Arms to provide written notice to a Senator’s office upon receiving any legal process (like a subpoena) seeking access to or disclosure of their “Senate data.”
Limited Delay: A court can only delay this notification if the Senator is the target of a criminal investigation.
Private Right of Action: Any Senator whose data was acquired, subpoenaed, or accessed in violation of this notification requirement can bring a civil lawsuit against the United States.
Significant Damages: Affected Senators are entitled to the greater of $500,000 per violation or actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and costs.
Retroactive Application: The law applies to violations occurring on or after January 1, 2022, and allows lawsuits to be filed up to five years after a Senator becomes aware of a violation.
This law was a direct response to revelations that the Justice Department, during special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the January 6th attack, had obtained phone records from multiple Republican Senators without notifying them, which sparked accusations of political targeting.
Good one anon. All these clowns here screaming for Boasberg’s head, yet no one knew the applicable law. Not even Turley.
Best comment yet.
Lots of links around here but no text about the applicable law. Thanks.
When was the law actually put in place? It appears that it was introduced as a reaction to the subpoenas issued by Jack Smith. This suggests that the law might not have been in effect when those subpoenas were sent out.
If that’s true, it could mean that even actions taken by the Trump administration might face issues under the same law. This is especially relevant regarding Pulte’s use of outside investigators who were looking into the mortgage applications of members of Congress to start their own investigations.
If? So you generate 88 words based on an “if”. You should write comic books.
88 has a special meaning to X…
He’ll never be impeached. He’s been well groomed to protect the ruling elite from the beginning. Yale undergrad. Skull and Bones. Oxford. Yale JD. Shared a house with SCOTUS justice Kavanaugh while getting his JD. Both political parties have their fingerprints all over his career rise. GWB brought him into the judiciary. Obama promoted him. And Chief Justice of SCOTUS, Roberts, named him to FISC.
Dude’s academic background, resume and ties to the ruling elite could not be stronger. He’s been groomed to protect the status quo elites. It’s impossible to be more immune to accountability than he is.
So what if he’s impeached? Trump was impeached twice and will likely be impeached at least once more if the D’s take back the House. There is literally no chance of a conviction by the Senate, so Bosaberg will remain on the Bench. Impeachment is a waste of time and money. The House can censure him, which can pass with a simple majority and which will have the same impact as an impeachment, which is nothing
Oops – Boasberg ,not Bosaberg. Must have been thinking of the Bosa brothers in the NFL
See Alcee Hastings FL…
It’s all a charade, MTG was 100% spot on.
Boasberg is not even an activist judge, he is an operative.
“despite a federal law designed to prevent precisely this type of secret investigation of Congress. Federal law requires that “no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process.”
What law is that exactly. Not even Turley knows. So impeach Boasberg for what exactly?
Your comment is spot on and Professor Turley needs to answer your question. Answer the question Professor Turley. What conduct makes impeachment appropriate?
Agreed…
The 3 Anonymous above are all the same guy feeding his weird contrarian ego.
Looks like the the jealous old fart is late to the party. No one missed you. 😊
Dear Professor Turley. First, I would like to thank you for your important contributions to our constitutional republic. Second, I would like to ask you a question about your saying “I do not support the calls for Boasberg to be impeached, but his role in this scandal cannot be ignored.” How is your statement not an unescapable logical inconsistency?
The progressively stupid and corrupt judge needs to be impeached.
Impeached? Based on what? Doing their job?
Progressively stupid still surprise me with their stupidity.
The progressively stupid and corrupt judge broke the law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/6628#:~:text=Upon%20a%20motion%20made%20promptly,data%20of%20the%20Senate%20office.
What law?
He broke the law.
You need to work on this concrete thinking problem.
Violating the law and the oath of office, multiple times. Clearly, he can no longer be partial, and he doesn’t even try to hide it.
This judge is a out of control left-wing activist judge with a god complex and must be removed from the bench. He is obviously biased against Trump. Boasberg and many other district judges have TDS and are a true threat to our Republic. I dont understand why Professor Turly is against the impeachment of Judge Boasberg
What is the “true threat to our Republic”?
Easy question, the liberal, progressive, democrat party, along with judge boasberg!
Wrong answer. There is not such concept of a “true threat” to the Republic. At best its someone’s personal delusion, at worst, its a call to war, kill those who don’t think like you. Once you killed “them” what have you got? A republic?
The sad fact is that many Boasberg-like members of the Federal judiciary. They are finding against Trump on something or other almost every day. Almost all are eventually overturned. You can drag Boasberg to a Congressional hearing, but he will defend vigorously and probably walk home with a smirk on his face.
There is a remedy for this and all the other errant judges, and that is to assign a mentor to each judge that has been overturned, say three times in a two year span, that will preapprove every decision of the judge prior to its publication. This mentor will act provisionally as a personal appeals court to a particular judge. This information will be made public, and will hopefully make the judge under mentorship be more circumspect about the law.
Assign a mentor? What is this high school level nonsense? Treat a judge like a high schooler who smoked cigarettes in the boys room.
No such tool or policy exists in law. Judges are, as defined by state and federal statutes, as independent.
So, judge’s like Boasberg can break the law, and there’s no consequences? They abuse their judicial authority with impunity, and there’s to be, NO consequences??? Not only should he be impeached, removed from office, but, face jail time himself! I’m sick to death of these rogue judges acting in highly partisan ways, as activist judges! His egregious behavior should be made an example of, on why judges SHOULD be impeached!
Break what law exactly?
I agree, he needs to go. Stop this law breaking now.
What law breaking occurred?
Boasturd has no credibility outside of the elitist class in Washington. His self-evident bias renders his judgments corrupt. If not arrested, he should be impeached. I would vote that he and what’s-his-name, the New York judge who engineered DJT’s felony conviction for bookkeeping errors, be cell mates.
What Boasberg did is not a felony. At best censure by the DC board. And the unethical behavior will go on until …
Professor, given the totality of Judge Boasberg’s violation of Law and violation of the Constitution (4th Amendment) at what point does his conduct become impeachable????? I cannot imagine the RICO case that would be uncovered when his Telephone records of the last 9 years are the subject of an actual Criminal Investigation??????????
There is no violation of the 4th amendment. It was a legitimate investigation, for all intents and proposes.
BTW, tel records, at best, by the telcos only go some 24 months back. Verizon having the longest policy, 24 months. The rest vary in timeframe.
There is a violation- due process requiring notification of a legal process against those affected was squashed! As was speedy trial squashed by plaintiffs in the J6 incarcerations of defendants for 4+ years and totally biased verdicts!
Notification? No such guarantee in state or federal constitutions.
A judicial gag order is a court-imposed restriction that prohibits participants in a legal case—such as attorneys, parties, witnesses, and sometimes jurors—from making public statements about the case. These orders are typically issued to protect the right to a fair trial by preventing prejudicial pretrial publicity that could influence potential jurors or compromise the impartiality of the jury. Judges may issue gag orders when they believe that public statements, especially those made on social media or to the press, could create an atmosphere of fear or intimidation, particularly in high-profile cases.
So, given that “Boasberg had imposed a gag order on telephone companies to prevent them from informing Congress that the executive branch was snooping on who had been in contact with them.” you and Boasberg consider preventing phone companies from informing sitting members of Congress that they are being “snooped” upon by the Executive Branch as a case of “a court-imposed restriction that prohibits participants in a legal case—such as attorneys, parties, witnesses, and sometimes jurors—from making public statements about the case.”??? And this Boasberg court protected “snooping” was done to “to protect the right to a fair trial by preventing prejudicial pretrial publicity that could influence potential jurors or compromise the impartiality of the jury.”????????
BTW, you state “Notification? No such guarantee in state or federal constitutions..” Is there a specific authority granted in those constitutions for “gag orders”? Especially when those “gag orders” involve conflicts between the branches of government?
What conflict? Not even Turley knows. he’s your God?
You don’t know either. So take the time, inform yourself what law(s) exactly fit the bill.
Peruse the DC circuit laws and rulings at the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Good luck.
A diversionary answer combined with insult and that says it all.
More concrete thinking with the use of “DC circuit laws and rulings at the U.S. Government Publishing Office.” as attempted camouflage. Lightweight at best.
So if you don’t support impeaching the judge, what do you recommend to remedy this situation?
Turley has a hard time dealing with reality. He lives in an alternative universe.
His “remedy” is to enlarge the Supreme Court the next time the democrats have Congress and the White House and make Boasberg Chief Justice.
You’re right. He shouldn’t be impeached.
He should be arrested.
if you don’t support impeachment then what is the remedy?
At the very least, Boasberg should be hauled before Congress, and, under oath, made to answer why he disobeyed the law to enable surveillance of Republicans.
I am curious, if such a blatantly illegal move does not warrant impeachment of the judge, what conduct Professor Turley thinks would make impeachment appropriate.
He did not disobey the law. He interpreted the law.
If disobeyed, what law(s) did he disobey?
“He did not disobey the law. He interpreted the law.” Every two-bit hood could make the exact same defense.
Have you thought your comment out, Anonymous?
First you state “He did not disobey the law. He interpreted the law.” Which law would that be? Your statement implies you and Bosberg know which law is specifically being addressed. But your second sentence “If disobeyed, what law(s) did he disobey?” suggest you do not know which law was broken.
Just covering your bases, eh? 😉
Come on. A judge’s job IS to interpret the law. And laws or the Constitution are undoubtedly referenced in his decision. If you want to credibly accuse him of violating a law, you have to at least know what specific law he has broken. Would you like to be prosecuted of breaking an unspecified law? That’s Kafkaesque.
YOU stated “He did not disobey the law. He interpreted the law.”, Which SPECIFIC law was that? And now you ask ME to provide that law? 😉 !!!! That IS Kafkaesque. YOU made the claim, YOU defend it with facts.
Like I said, you are just covering your bases cuz it looks like you don’t know what you are taking about. But that would be shocking, right?
Please direct me to the presence of “interpret” anywhere in the Constitution.
Judges and justices have precisely no power to modify or amend, or modify by “interpretation.”
Yes, the judge seems hypocritical. But Trump is doing a lot of things we accused Biden of and I hear crickets. So: Hypocrisy all around!
You admit that “Yes, the judge seems hypocritical” and you resort to moral equivalency to defend your position? You lose.
That was easy……
Please direct me to the presence of “interpret” anywhere in the Constitution.
Judges and justices have precisely no power to modify or amend, or modify by “interpretation.”